IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-50941
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM PERRY LORD,
a/k/a Bill Lord,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-93-CR-99
- - - - - - - - - -
August 30, 1996
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Perry Lord appeals his sentence and conviction for
multiple counts relating to failure to keep and maintain records,
falsifying records, and conspiring to fail to maintain records in
connection with the sale of firearms. Having examined the
record, we determine that the trial court did not err in giving
an instruction regarding “deliberate ignorance.” The district
court correctly determined that the circumstances surrounding the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-50941
- 2 -
sale of the firearms were so overwhelmingly suspicious that
Lord’s failure to question the purchase allows the instruction to
be given. United States v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d, 946, 953
(5th Cir. 1990).
Lord also objects to the sentencing court’s adjustment of
his sentence by two levels for obstructing justice. The court
made specific findings that Lord committed perjury by adopting
the findings of the Presentence Report.
Once a sentencing court finds that a defendant has committed
perjury at trial, an upward adjustment is required under U.S.S.G.
§ 3C1.1. United States v. Storm, 36 F.2d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir.
1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1798 (1995). Ample evidence in
the record supports the sentencing court’s finding that Lord
committed perjury when he testified that he did not know that
firearms he sold to a woman using the identification of Sandra
Degadillo were actually being purchased by Jorge Valdez.
Therefore, any error with regard to a finding concerning Mendez’
true identity was harmless. See Williams v United States, 503
U.S. 193, 202 (1992).
AFFIRMED.